Before I start posting I'd like to point out a tiny item of interest. This is my 14th post. It just so happens though that my 7th post gained a lot of attention as did my first (for obvious reasons). It would be interesting to see if this post follows that pattern, after all the tru7h is out there!.
NOTE: this note was written after writing the blog post > Please excuse me if this post seems a bit of a ramble, disjointed and confusing. In some ways, on the topic I will be discussing, I feel the same way. If you could bear with me, I hope this post will provide something to think bout.
Onto the blog proper. Lately I've found that the sci-fi short story I've been working on has reached a blockage (one that I've been working on and made progress). My short stories (whether sci-fi or fantasy) I set in a larger universe (Separate for SF and fantasy). Thus each time I write a short piece I am not only working on my larger stories as a whole, but I have a framework to use. However this also brings up certain problems. When I write my characters or settings I have to consider them in the larger context of the world(s) in which they inhabit. This means I have to come up with a whole set of factors for why certain characters act certain ways that aren't explicitly revealed in the piece itself (the same goes for setting). For the current piece I'm working on I found myself stumbling on a character's motivation for a certain action. This motivation however is what puzzles me. I can describe from the actual actions the reasons for the actions preceding it....but when I get to the base motivation the true why of a motivation I find myself stumbling.
It goes without saying that when considering the deep motivation of a character or group of characters, I am trying to avoid motivations that have been used before. Before I go on I feel the need to explain why I am not going into specifics; Apart from wanting to keep my ideas between myself, friends, and family, I want to work out a way to understand how to think about motivations. I think the best way for me to come up with them, to put it another way, is to work out a way of thinking about motivations.
What does one consider when working out the deep motivations behind a character's actions? When discussing humans sometimes the answer is easy; It's love, it's anger, it's sadness, it's joy etc. But at other times it can be much more complicated; Politics, religion, duty, insanity. All of these things are hidden in a person's mind. They can in fact be carried to their death without ever being revealed or hinted at except under the greatest scrutiny (emotions are much the same way! Secret love, revenge, jealousy etc.) Interestingly, to point out that these concealed (emotional or otherwise) motivations can be always be layered, without order, depending on the individual. In reality there is never a way we can truly grasp what lays at the bottom of a person's motivations, but should this be the same for a writer? Should a writer leave these deepest motivations in a hole? Or should a writer illuminate what the writer thinks of as the motivations for an action or a life. Insanity is particularly interesting. It has been the subject of much scrutiny (both from within the ranks of psychology and from without). Michel Foucault in particular investigated the political/governmental aspects of deciding who was insane and who was not. While there have been many arguments as to the accuracy of Foucault's evidence and theories, for my purposes I feel that the questions raised are enough to ponder. Psychology has been able to categorize and investigate an all manner of mental conditions, and thus theorize as to their motivations. But the much of the progress they have made has been by the examinations of voluntary subjects. The involuntary ones are interesting because how do we know for sure that what we have discovered has leaded us in the right direction? In fact, how do we know that those who are voluntary in the world of psychology are in fact voluntary and not leading us on?
Of course clever investigators can pick up on the tiniest details in order to reveal more about a person's motivations, but that of course is not a true clear picture. This goes back to my question of the writer, and then to my own puzzle. Some of my favorite stories do not reveal the motivations (or even the identities) of characters in order for the reader to puzzle them out. Each interpretation (based upon the evidence provided by the story) can alter the message of the story as a whole, which provides endless rereading and investigating. But on the other hand, some of my other favorite stories do their best to clarify who characters are, and why they act. This then provides a way for the author to give a message upon a point; to be able to say something about human character or the world in general. But is this limiting? Would this then flatten the characters into beings that aren't entirely real, only able to exist upon the pages of a story?
Any discussion about this would be very welcome.
This is the main reason why I like writing as a medium more than anything else. It lets you get into the heads of characters more than any other story-telling device, I think.
ReplyDeleteI'm generally of the opinion that a reader should be able to get SOME idea of a character's motivation (assuming that the character's motivations are capable of being understood, which may not always be the case with SF's aliens or fantasy's monsters). Even if the character in question is some side character, or a villain who is MEANT to be mysterious, I start to get frustrated as a reader if it feels like the character is acting randomly for no good reason. I start to suspect that the character's motivations are "whatever the author wants them to do" rather than anything solid.
I don't think it's bad to leave the motivation to be puzzled out, though. It's like anything else with a story -- who describes everything in the plot from the start? What story doesn't have a few loose ends at the end so that the reader doesn't stop thinking about it? Or, it's like world-building -- it's nice to know that there's a huge world back there, but who has the time to read through pages and pages of history?
As long as the motivation seems consistent. First example to come to mind: Atlas Shrugged. One of the (billions and billions of) problems I had with that book was the motivation of Jimmy Taggart. At the beginning he seems like everything he does, he does because he honestly believes that's the best way to make everybody happy and prosperous -- then, by the end, apparently -the whole time- he had actually been nihilistically trying to destroy everything. Okay. That's a progression of "figuring out more about the motivation", but when it's contradictary like that... no.
I don't think having clear, described motivations flatten the character out, though. Sure, it seems a bit unrealistic to have a character who only has a single, simple motivation, but who says it's impossible to fully describe complicated, realistic motivations as well? Another example: Palahniuk books generally describe the narrator quite a lot, and by the end, I can generally understand their motivations. I don't think knowing all that is limiting, though -- in fact, sometimes it even deepens understanding a bit. (That's one thing I like about the Fight Club book more than the movie. The Narrator has a past!)
I guess overall, I see human motivations as being a bit more complicated. I see it as being complex, often contradictory, influenced by past experiences, present society, etc.
Side note: I will suspiciously side-eye any author who describes a character's motivations as just "insanity". Mental illnesses can't make up the -entirety- of somebody's existence. Even if they're, say, plagued by paranoid delusions, then the motivation there is still fear and the desire to be safe, not "insanity". I guess I take a pretty Foucauldian view of most psychology, and I'm tired of mental illnesses like schizophrenia being depicted in unrealistic ways. Sigh.
Thanks for commenting! n.n
ReplyDeleteX3 to last comment...Yeah I think there is always more to insanity than meets the eye. One cannot have a story that can simply be explained away by stating, "...because they were crazy."
As to your other comments. I suppose I didn't mean to come off as entirely one or the other, but I did seem to only show opposites. I guess what I'm having trouble with is that I can work backwards with my motivations for characters, but when I reach the start of it all I find that the choice really is up to me...and I suppose deciding on what 'it' is, is a real challenge.
But what if the character itself does not know it's own motivation? What if their entire goal is to discover such a motivation? But that seems to be a cop out as well if -I- don't know, or at least have an idea of what goal is, even if my characters don't.
It might be a bit of a cop-out, but I guess that depends on how it's written? (As most things are. Hah.) I mean, on the one hand, you might wind up with a passive, motivationless character; but on the other, it could actually be a deep soul-searching quest, and those certainly can be well-done. I'd suggest having some idea in mind before you go in, though, otherwise you might have that issue of trying to ret-con a motivation.
ReplyDeleteAnd, well, a lot of the choices in writing are up to you, aren't they? XD Admittedly, I'm one of those folk for whom characters tend to come naturally and "speak" to me, so I'm probably not the best person to talk to here.
heh np all thoughts help. I suppose that the problems I'm facing are largely my own design. I don't want to follow a motivation that I've seen before, but the limitations on my story are almost asking for those same motivations. X3 seems like the best answer is a good long think session.
ReplyDelete